AEC was quite an active partner in the BeNeLux whereas British Leyland was more a collection of possible lorries, often used by operators for local distribution.
Herewith a typical Dutch configuration, it shows sturdy and ready for an every-day-job!
Van Twist of Dordrecht (near Rotterdam) imported A.E.C. (as well as Seddon, Unic, Willy’s …) and soon I will share an original brochure of their A.E.C.-activities.
I’ve always thought that the 8 wheeler rigid and large drawbar trailer configuration is superior to the artic one.
Unfortunately for our 8 wheeler orientated manufacturing base the anti road transport UK government knew it too thereby again shooting our own industry in the foot.
New Zealand shows what might have been in that regard with its eight wheeler rigid and 5 or 6 axle drawbar dominated road transport industry.
Dominated? When was the last time you were in the land of the long white cloud? You just make this [zb] up to suit your warped narrative.
Let’s just say that there’s more of em there than you would ever see ‘out and about’ here other than when the fair ground arrives in town.
That is NZ shown there, right.
Couple of points. RR went belly up in 1971, the T45 wasn’t available until the end of that decade. The Crusader was a fairly new model in 1971 so the Leyland group were already in bed with RR. You state that “the government was always more interested in helping foreign manufacturing industry to succeed than our own”. Which government are you pointing the finger at as both Labour and Conservative administrations were in power in the 70’s - or were they both culpable.
To clear a possible misunderstanding, it was Rolls Royce Aero Engines that went belly up and was bailed out by Edwards Heath’s Conservative government. It was the Labour government that limbered Leyland with BMB back in 1968. Wilson and Wedgewood Benn could not countenance making 400,00 workers unemployed if BMC went ■■■■ up.
RR Eagle Diesel engines ( and the cars) were separate operations. RR Eagle diesels continued until taken over by Perkins engines. Perkins were later bought out for $1.32 billion by Caterpillar.
RR continued supplying engines to Leyland well into the 80’s and 90’s for Marathon and Roadtrain.
So what in real terms was the difference in governmental approach. One colour decided to keep a company going and save jobs by merging it with another firm, the other colour decided to bankroll it. Both were to save jobs. Not an unreasonable approach for any government to take IMO.
It was clear that ‘merging’ BMC with anything was toxic to maintaining jobs.Just like trying to base a vertically integrated business model on obsolete at best and badly designed junk at worse while flogging off the best kit to the highest foreign bidder so it could predictably be put out of the frame.
AEC was quite an active partner in the BeNeLux whereas British Leyland was more a collection of possible lorries, often used by operators for local distribution.
Herewith a typical Dutch configuration, it shows sturdy and ready for an every-day-job!
Van Twist of Dordrecht (near Rotterdam) imported A.E.C. (as well as Seddon, Unic, Willy’s …) and soon I will share an original brochure of their A.E.C.-activities.
I’ve always thought that the 8 wheeler rigid and large drawbar trailer configuration is superior to the artic one.
Unfortunately for our 8 wheeler orientated manufacturing base the anti road transport UK government knew it too thereby again shooting our own industry in the foot.
New Zealand shows what might have been in that regard with its eight wheeler rigid and 5 or 6 axle drawbar dominated road transport industry.
Dominated? When was the last time you were in the land of the long white cloud? You just make this [zb] up to suit your warped narrative.
Let’s just say that there’s more of em there than you would ever see ‘out and about’ here other than when the fair ground arrives in town.
That is NZ shown there, right.
AEC was quite an active partner in the BeNeLux whereas British Leyland was more a collection of possible lorries, often used by operators for local distribution.
Herewith a typical Dutch configuration, it shows sturdy and ready for an every-day-job!
Van Twist of Dordrecht (near Rotterdam) imported A.E.C. (as well as Seddon, Unic, Willy’s …) and soon I will share an original brochure of their A.E.C.-activities.
I’ve always thought that the 8 wheeler rigid and large drawbar trailer configuration is superior to the artic one.
Unfortunately for our 8 wheeler orientated manufacturing base the anti road transport UK government knew it too thereby again shooting our own industry in the foot.
New Zealand shows what might have been in that regard with its eight wheeler rigid and 5 or 6 axle drawbar dominated road transport industry.
Dominated? When was the last time you were in the land of the long white cloud? You just make this [zb] up to suit your warped narrative.
[/quote]
“RR including Diesels was taken into public ownership meaning that both Leyland and RR were owned by the taxpayer.”
Leyland weren’t nationalised until 1975, 4 years after RR went bust. The hived off engine division was sold in 1973. They were never owned by the government at the same time.
“It was clear that ‘merging’ BMC with anything was toxic to maintaining jobs.Just like trying to base a vertically integrated business model on obsolete at best and badly designed junk at worse while flogging off the best kit to the highest foreign bidder so it could predictably be put out of the frame.”
I don’t understand your train of thought here. How was merging BMC “toxic”? Surely any attempt to maintain a company of that size was worth the effort. If it hadn’t been done it would only have accelerated the introduction of foreign manufacturers into the UK market. That it failed in the end shouldn’t be taken as a reason for not doing it in the first place.
Tomdhu , what was the meaning of this thread? Did you mean Leyland would have been fine if AEC hadn’t merged and instead taken over BMC ? Weren’t Leyland the dominant party who made all the decisions. Leave AEC independent and lumber them with BMC . Leyland made mistake after mistake , the gas turbine how much did that cost the fixed head and of course the V8 which was a project the designers didn’t know what it was to be used for , enter Stokes who insisted it went into production. Was it road going , industrial the designers didn’t know. With management like that they didn’t need BMC to bankrupt them they could do it themselves
Dennis Javelin:
“RR including Diesels was taken into public ownership meaning that both Leyland and RR were owned by the taxpayer.”
Leyland weren’t nationalised until 1975, 4 years after RR went bust. The hived off engine division was sold in 1973. They were never owned by the government at the same time.
As I said it was murky but as of 1975 both Leyland and RR were both still in taxpayers hands regardless of RR’s move to Vickers which was also nationalised not private.
While even the Leyland nationalisation could be predicted in 1973.Logically the government still had the choice of knocking the TL12 on the head and handing over production rights of RR Eagle diesels to Leyland as of 1975.
Dennis Javelin:
“It was clear that ‘merging’ BMC with anything was toxic to maintaining jobs.Just like trying to base a vertically integrated business model on obsolete at best and badly designed junk at worse while flogging off the best kit to the highest foreign bidder so it could predictably be put out of the frame.”
I don’t understand your train of thought here. How was merging BMC “toxic”? Surely any attempt to maintain a company of that size was worth the effort. If it hadn’t been done it would only have accelerated the introduction of foreign manufacturers into the UK market. That it failed in the end shouldn’t be taken as a reason for not doing it in the first place.
BMC was failing/failed from the time when it effectively black mailed Jaguar into bailing it out.Some say to the point where its true liabilities were hidden from Lyons when he mistakenly signed up to the deal.
Also contrary to the hype BMC’s front drive products were rightly as toxic in the motor trade as its balance sheet was to the respective BMH and BLMC groups that it predictably helped to bring down.
Which leaves the question of that being the intended aim of our government as part of the deliberate and eventually stated, move away from being a manufacturing based economy.
YouTube as a reference source? I suppose it’s a change from Wikipedia.
To be fair a YouTube video titled out and about truck spotting in NZ in which unsurprisingly the rigid 8 and large drawbar configuration is the gloriously dominant feature wouldn’t you say ?.
Which ‘would’ have provided a massive advantage for our truck manufacturing industry if it had allowed us to run with it here.
Dennis Javelin:
“It was clear that ‘merging’ BMC with anything was toxic to maintaining jobs.Just like trying to base a vertically integrated business model on obsolete at best and badly designed junk at worse while flogging off the best kit to the highest foreign bidder so it could predictably be put out of the frame.”
I don’t understand your train of thought here. How was merging BMC “toxic”? Surely any attempt to maintain a company of that size was worth the effort. If it hadn’t been done it would only have accelerated the introduction of foreign manufacturers into the UK market. That it failed in the end shouldn’t be taken as a reason for not doing it in the first place.
BMC was failing/failed from the time when it effectively black mailed Jaguar into bailing it out.Some say to the point where its true liabilities were hidden from Lyons when he mistakenly signed up to the deal.
Also contrary to the hype BMC’s front drive products were rightly as toxic in the motor trade as its balance sheet was to the respective BMH and BLMC groups that it predictably helped to bring down.
Which leaves the question of that being the intended aim of our government as part of the deliberate and eventually stated, move away from being a manufacturing based economy.
Like everyone on this forum you’re entitled to hold whatever opinion you want but your really straining credibility by suggesting that the Labour government of 1964-70 was determined to move Britain away from being a manufacturing based economy. If anything they were trying to make the manufacturing processes more modern to be able to compete with the rest of the world. I don’t buy for a second the suggestion that their aim was to collapse the job market from which they derived the vast majority of their support. You might apply this concept to the Thatcher administration who were hell bent on their idealogical view of what a future Britain without trade unions would look like but please don’t insult our intelligence with it being a long running aim of previous governments to do this. Thatcher was fortunate in that she had the luxury of the revenues from North Sea oil to allow the government to support an unemployment/benefit claiming rate of around 6m people that was the fallout of her policies.
How things might have been different if we’d used this windfall to support industry instead of destroying it all in a fit of pique because the miners brought down the Heath administration. Yes the unions needed to be reined in but her scorched earth policy was, in my opinion, the worst possible way of doing this.
Dennis Javelin:
“It was clear that ‘merging’ BMC with anything was toxic to maintaining jobs.Just like trying to base a vertically integrated business model on obsolete at best and badly designed junk at worse while flogging off the best kit to the highest foreign bidder so it could predictably be put out of the frame.”
I don’t understand your train of thought here. How was merging BMC “toxic”? Surely any attempt to maintain a company of that size was worth the effort. If it hadn’t been done it would only have accelerated the introduction of foreign manufacturers into the UK market. That it failed in the end shouldn’t be taken as a reason for not doing it in the first place.
BMC was failing/failed from the time when it effectively black mailed Jaguar into bailing it out.Some say to the point where its true liabilities were hidden from Lyons when he mistakenly signed up to the deal.
Also contrary to the hype BMC’s front drive products were rightly as toxic in the motor trade as its balance sheet was to the respective BMH and BLMC groups that it predictably helped to bring down.
Which leaves the question of that being the intended aim of our government as part of the deliberate and eventually stated, move away from being a manufacturing based economy.
Like everyone on this forum you’re entitled to hold whatever opinion you want but your really straining credibility by suggesting that the Labour government of 1964-70 was determined to move Britain away from being a manufacturing based economy. If anything they were trying to make the manufacturing processes more modern to be able to compete with the rest of the world. I don’t buy for a second the suggestion that their aim was to collapse the job market from which they derived the vast majority of their support. You might apply this concept to the Thatcher administration who were hell bent on their idealogical view of what a future Britain without trade unions would look like but please don’t insult our intelligence with it being a long running aim of previous governments to do this. Thatcher was fortunate in that she had the luxury of the revenues from North Sea oil to allow the government to support an unemployment/benefit claiming rate of around 6m people that was the fallout of her policies.
How things might have been different if we’d used this windfall to support industry instead of destroying it all in a fit of pique because the miners brought down the Heath administration. Yes the unions needed to be reined in but her scorched earth policy was, in my opinion, the worst possible way of doing this.
Meanwhile the facts show that Labour governments were no different to Tory ones in betting on foreign interests over our own.
So there we are BMC allowed to blackmail Jaguar into the BMH debacle and stitch up which eventually predictably helped to crash the whole British Leyland Group.In no small measure because of BMC’s rush to producing front wheel drive junk in a market rightly demanding Austin Cambridges and Westminster’s and Cortina’s and Zodiacs in the volume sector.
An 8 wheeler rigid orientated road transport industry and manufacturing industry turned into and thrown open to a tractor unit based model to the advantage of foreign importers.
Using public cash to support the automotive industry while at the same time allowing in massive automotive imports totally defeating the object.
The TL12 v RR Eagle hypothesis applied in 1975 so more Labour government treachery.
Last but not least a post war economic stitch up which clearly aimed to rebuild Europe at our expense.
I say that as a proud militant trade union supporter, working in the UK truck manufacturing sector of the automotive industry, with routine connections with Scammell and it’s workforce at least as part of that, from 1975-1980.
Meanwhile the facts show that Labour governments were no different to Tory ones in betting on foreign interests over our own.
So there we are BMC allowed to blackmail Jaguar into the BMH debacle and stitch up which eventually predictably helped to crash the whole British Leyland Group.In no small measure because of BMC’s rush to producing front wheel drive junk in a market rightly demanding Austin Cambridges and Westminster’s and Cortina’s and Zodiacs in the volume sector.
An 8 wheeler rigid orientated road transport industry and manufacturing industry turned into and thrown open to a tractor unit based model to the advantage of foreign importers.
Using public cash to support the automotive industry while at the same time allowing in massive automotive imports totally defeating the object.
The TL12 v RR Eagle hypothesis applied in 1975 so more Labour government treachery.
Last but not least a post war economic stitch up which clearly aimed to rebuild Europe at our expense.
I say that as a proud militant trade union supporter, working in the UK truck manufacturing sector of the automotive industry, with routine connections with Scammell and it’s workforce at least as part of that, from 1975-1980.
[/quote]
Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.
Yes the forced merger of BMH and Leyland would ultimately cause the whole group to collapse but to suggest that this was all some kind of Machiavellian plan to destroy a huge part of the British industrial landscape and let Johnny Foreigner step in is risible.
As a transport manager I would always have had artics over 8 wheelers as, for me, they offered greater flexibility but that will always be a matter of opinion.
RR diesels were no longer part of the RR group in 1975 so the government were pretty powerless to intervene.
I agree that we didn’t fare well out of the post war reconstruction of Europe but our failure to embrace the embryonic EEC and instead cling to our fast fading and increasingly hostile “empire” played a greater part in our being excluded than any great scheme to keep us on our knees. However, even as late as the 1970’s, British attitudes seemed to be stuck in a pre-war time zone whilst the rest of the world had moved on. 20 years after the first motorway opened we were still building premium trucks that wouldn’t have looked out of date on the History Channel. F88 or J4T? which would you prefer dear operator/driver.
We were hampered by years of poor decision making by governments but I think this is more an indictment on the calibre of politicians we had than a deliberate programme of sabotage. How many public schoolboys ever sat behind the wheel of a car let alone a truck. Even the left wing politicians were predominantly from private educational establishments. It was their detachment from reality that failed us rather than a master plan.
Dennis Javelin:
Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.
Yes the forced merger of BMH and Leyland would ultimately cause the whole group to collapse but to suggest that this was all some kind of Machiavellian plan to destroy a huge part of the British industrial landscape and let Johnny Foreigner step in is risible.
As a transport manager I would always have had artics over 8 wheelers as, for me, they offered greater flexibility but that will always be a matter of opinion.
RR diesels were no longer part of the RR group in 1975 so the government were pretty powerless to intervene.
I agree that we didn’t fare well out of the post war reconstruction of Europe but our failure to embrace the embryonic EEC and instead cling to our fast fading and increasingly hostile “empire” played a greater part in our being excluded than any great scheme to keep us on our knees. However, even as late as the 1970’s, British attitudes seemed to be stuck in a pre-war time zone whilst the rest of the world had moved on. 20 years after the first motorway opened we were still building premium trucks that wouldn’t have looked out of date on the History Channel. F88 or J4T? which would you prefer dear operator/driver.
We were hampered by years of poor decision making by governments but I think this is more an indictment on the calibre of politicians we had than a deliberate programme of sabotage. How many public schoolboys ever sat behind the wheel of a car let alone a truck. Even the left wing politicians were predominantly from private educational establishments. It was their detachment from reality that failed us rather than a master plan.
Firstly I was clearly referring to the 8 wheeler rigid + drawbar configuration.As shown to ultimate effect in the Dutch and NZ examples not 8 wheeler v artic.The result would have been massive increase in payload, no wasteful expense on tractor units and lower axle weights.With all of the advantages of artics.
With the bonus of making it a more domestic product friendly and import unfriendly market.
As I said RR diesels were definitely still in government hands in 1975 having been hived off to Nationalised Vickers.
The questions, of what the heck was the government playing at, in not stopping BMC’s disastrous commercially suicidal antics, first re Jaguar and then BLMC and why lumber the Leyland Truck division with the TL12 when it had a far better ‘in house’ option in the form of the RR Eagle diesel.
What was the point of throwing public cash at firms like Leyland and AEC and and Scammell which were in an economic fight for their lives, while then opening the door to foreign imports, in the most important domestic market, which were crushing them.
You could have heard that being said in any car or truck factory shop floor or on any used car forecourt in the day nothing to do with hindsight.
Good for Ford Germany and DAF, among other foreign exporters invading and taking over our market, absolutely.
It looks quacks and flies like deliberate sabotage to the advantage of foreign imports.As part of the post war stitch up which was all about rebuilding Europe at our expense.The eventually stated aim, of deindustrialising our economy, turning it into a services based economy, obviously being part of that stitch up.
Attached a Dutch version of a former British AEC-brochure. In 1948 Kemper & Van Twist (then already Perkins-importer) started with AEC till 1960 when AEC Ltd suggested that the representation for AEC should be done by Verheul of Waddinxveen…reason…their production-facility was (for the AEC-board of directors) impressive as this Dutch company had a good track in coachwork as well as lorries and busses.
Well, that didn’t also turned into a real future and Verheul and AEC soon left the market…some years ongoing for service to local bus-operators.
It is strange (to say the least) that since 1948 AEC (still) was not convinced to have a vision to European-distribution…history repeats itselfs?
Leyland was a very good card-player in this field as they already strugled with their own sales and service in BeNeLux…still involved in passenger cars.
The brochure is dated 1957-1960, no exact year printed.
"The original Rolls-Royce Limited had been nationalised in 1971 due to the financial collapse of the company, caused in part by the development of the RB211 jet engine. In 1973, the British government sold the Rolls-Royce car business to allow nationalised parent Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited to concentrate on jet engine manufacture.
In 1980, Rolls-Royce Motors was acquired by Vickers."
Dennis Javelin:
Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.
Yes the forced merger of BMH and Leyland would ultimately cause the whole group to collapse but to suggest that this was all some kind of Machiavellian plan to destroy a huge part of the British industrial landscape and let Johnny Foreigner step in is risible.
As a transport manager I would always have had artics over 8 wheelers as, for me, they offered greater flexibility but that will always be a matter of opinion.
RR diesels were no longer part of the RR group in 1975 so the government were pretty powerless to intervene.
I agree that we didn’t fare well out of the post war reconstruction of Europe but our failure to embrace the embryonic EEC and instead cling to our fast fading and increasingly hostile “empire” played a greater part in our being excluded than any great scheme to keep us on our knees. However, even as late as the 1970’s, British attitudes seemed to be stuck in a pre-war time zone whilst the rest of the world had moved on. 20 years after the first motorway opened we were still building premium trucks that wouldn’t have looked out of date on the History Channel. F88 or J4T? which would you prefer dear operator/driver.
We were hampered by years of poor decision making by governments but I think this is more an indictment on the calibre of politicians we had than a deliberate programme of sabotage. How many public schoolboys ever sat behind the wheel of a car let alone a truck. Even the left wing politicians were predominantly from private educational establishments. It was their detachment from reality that failed us rather than a master plan.
Firstly I was clearly referring to the 8 wheeler rigid + drawbar configuration.As shown to ultimate effect in the Dutch and NZ examples not 8 wheeler v artic.The result would have been massive increase in payload, no wasteful expense on tractor units and lower axle weights.With all of the advantages of artics.
With the bonus of making it a more domestic product friendly and import unfriendly market.
As I said RR diesels were definitely still in government hands in 1975 having been hived off to Nationalised Vickers.
The questions, of what the heck was the government playing at, in not stopping BMC’s disastrous commercially suicidal antics, first re Jaguar and then BLMC and why lumber the Leyland Truck division with the TL12 when it had a far better ‘in house’ option in the form of the RR Eagle diesel.
What was the point of throwing public cash at firms like Leyland and AEC and and Scammell which were in an economic fight for their lives, while then opening the door to foreign imports, in the most important domestic market, which were crushing them.
You could have heard that being said in any car or truck factory shop floor or on any used car forecourt in the day nothing to do with hindsight.
Good for Ford Germany and DAF, among other foreign exporters invading and taking over our market, absolutely.
It looks quacks and flies like deliberate sabotage to the advantage of foreign imports.As part of the post war stitch up which was all about rebuilding Europe at our expense.The eventually stated aim, of deindustrialising our economy, turning it into a services based economy, obviously being part of that stitch up.
Here we go again , this as all been said in other threads , this obsession of the RR Eagle being a world beater when it clearly wasn’t especially in 75 when they weren’t a popular engine for hauliers some quoting unreliability problems and very heavy fuel consumption. On the other hand the TL12 was well regarded for reliability and economy.This engine wasn’t lumbered on the Leyland group it was their only in house option which with proper funding could have been developed .The tooling was spent and BL couldn’t afford to replace it and soldiered on , so take another workforce on (RR) and the factory at what cost they didnt have the funds
“What was the point of throwing public cash at firms like Leyland and AEC and and Scammell which were in an economic fight for their lives, while then opening the door to foreign imports, in the most important domestic market, which were crushing them.
You could have heard that being said in any car or truck factory shop floor or on any used car forecourt in the day nothing to do with hindsight.”
By the time the Leyland group were struggling we were in the common market the whole point if which was to tear down trade barriers within the community. We had as much access to the continental market as they had to ours. The fact that they were better at it than us is indisputable. The Labour government of 74-79 should maybe be given some credit for trying to save them as their successors certainly didn’t give a flying ■■■■ about British industry.
"The original Rolls-Royce Limited had been nationalised in 1971 due to the financial collapse of the company, caused in part by the development of the RB211 jet engine. In 1973, the British government sold the Rolls-Royce car business to allow nationalised parent Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited to concentrate on jet engine manufacture.
In 1980, Rolls-Royce Motors was acquired by Vickers."
I rest my case.
Can you confirm exactly who owned RR diesels Shrewsbury as of 1975 if not Vickers ?.
Exactly who owned Vickers at that time and up to 1986 and obviously during the handover of RR diesels to MF ?.
Dennis Javelin:
“What was the point of throwing public cash at firms like Leyland and AEC and and Scammell which were in an economic fight for their lives, while then opening the door to foreign imports, in the most important domestic market, which were crushing them.
You could have heard that being said in any car or truck factory shop floor or on any used car forecourt in the day nothing to do with hindsight.”
By the time the Leyland group were struggling we were in the common market the whole point if which was to tear down trade barriers within the community. We had as much access to the continental market as they had to ours. The fact that they were better at it than us is indisputable. The Labour government of 74-79 should maybe be given some credit for trying to save them as their successors certainly didn’t give a flying [zb] about British industry.
The fact is they weren’t better at it their customers imposed their own de facto import barriers by generally buying their own country’s products.
We didn’t have that luxury of having such a loyal patriotic customer base.
The UK market was worth far more to us (and them ) than theirs was worth to us.
As for Labour the same Labour that put Europhile Callaghan in as leader.While ditching Benn and Shore who both knew that our economy and industries couldn’t withstand such a biased unbalanced trading regime and resulting imports onslaught…
Ironically my own job was based on an export dominated order book but rarely if ever any of those exports destined for the EEC.More often the Eastern Bloc but all way outweighed by Australia, South Africa, US and South East Asia.Even the Americans realising that the British product was better than their own Oshkosh product.Obviously no such objectively re Europe regarding inferior Faun etc bought on tribal lines.
When was the last time you were in the land of the long white cloud? You just make this [zb] up to suit your warped narrative.
